The Realistic Observer

Sunday, October 16, 2016

The Iniquities of HRC: A Complete Saga

The following post from Frontpage mag. is a lengthy, comprehensive work which discusses the history of Hillary's "career". It is well worth the time it takes to read it.

The break down include the following sections:

Clinton's Private Email Server & the Espionage ActThe Clinton Foundation ScandalsClinton's Support for the Iran Nuclear DealClinton Helps Russia Gain Control of 20% of All U.S. UraniumThe Benghazi Debacle, and Clinton's Role in Arming Jihadists in Libya and SyriaThe Radical Islamist Affiliations of Clinton's Closest AideThe Deadly Consequences of Clinton's Absurd Fictions About Islam & TerrorismThe Radical Islamist Affiliations of Clinton's Closest AideClinton's Role in the Rise of ISIS and the Stratospheric Growth of Worldwide TerrorismClinton's Role in Squandering America's Victory in the Iraq WarClinton's Horrible Judgment Regarding Another Terrorist EnemyClinton's Empty Talk Regarding Russia and ChinaClinton's Reprehensible Treatment of IsraelClinton Turns Libya into a Terrorist Hell HoleClinton's Plan to Import 65,000 Syrian Refugees into the U.S. As Quickly As PossibleImmigration: Clinton Explicitly Favors Amnesty, Sanctuary Cities, and “Open Borders” Clinton's Opposition to Gun RightsClinton's Plans to Expand Obamacare into a Government-Run, Single-Payer SystemFighting Voter ID Laws As “Racist” Schemes to Disenfranchise MinoritiesRejecting School Vouchers for Poor Minority Children in Failing Urban Schools“Criminal Justice Reform”: Going Soft on Crime, and Filling America's GraveyardsClinton's Affiliation with Al Sharpton & Black Lives MatterClinton’s View of the Supreme Court and Its PurposeClinton Supports Partial-Birth AbortionClinton's Personal Persecution of a Young Rape Victim

As the reader can see, this post has a plethora of detailed but vital information.

The Clinton Record: A devastating exposé of the most unfit and undeserving individual ever to seek the American presidency.

by John Perazzo Never in American history has anyone as unfit and undeserving as
Hillary Clinton run for U.S. President. While she stands on the
threshold of being elected to the White House, she quite literally
belongs in a prison cell. This article lays out the case against her,
chapter and verse.

Clinton's Private Email Server & the Espionage Act

Throughout her entire four-year tenure as secretary of state, Mrs.
Clinton never acquired or used a government email account. Instead, she
transmitted — in violation of government regulations — all of her
official correspondences via a private email address that traced back to a secret, private, unsecured server that was housed at her New York residence.1
And immediately after those emails were subpoenaed by Congress, Clinton
instructed a team of her advisers to unilaterally delete, with no
oversight, almost 32,000 of the roughly 60,000 emails in question.2Clinton claimed that her reason for having used only a personal email
account, rather than both a personal and a government account, was that
she found it “easier,” “better,” “simpler” and more convenient to “carry
just one device for my work and for my personal emails instead of two.”3
It was eventually learned, however, that Mrs. Clinton in fact had used
no fewer than 13 mobile devices to access emails on her private server,
but the FBI was unable to obtain any of those devices in its
investigation, in some cases because Clinton aides had been instructed
to smash them with a hammer.4Clinton originally assured Americans that not even one
piece of classified material had ever been transmitted via her
unsecured, secret, personal server. But now it is known that at least
2,079 emails that she sent or received via that server, contained
classified material.5
As the eminent broadcaster and legal scholar Mark Levin has made plain,
each of those 2,079 offenses constituted a felonious violation of
Section 793 of the Espionage Act.6 And each violation was punishable by a prison sentence of up to ten years.7In January 2016, former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates said “the
odds are pretty high” that Russia, China, and Iran had compromised
Clinton's unsecured email server.8But hey, who cares? At least Mrs. Clinton, unlike Donald Trump, never
engaged in crude, private trash talk that was recorded on tape. And all
of her disparaging, condescending, hate-soaked, fiction-laced
denunciations of her political rivals are delivered in measured, solemn,
well-rehearsed tones. And she of course respects women deeply. In fact,
she respects all people, including the 315 million Americans
whose personal and national security was compromised when Mrs. Clinton
willfully allowed top-secret information to wind up in the possession of
our country's most hostile enemies around the world.The Clinton Foundation ScandalsIn an effort to prevent foreign governments, organizations, and
individuals from influencing the policy decisions of American national
leaders, campaign-finance laws prohibit U.S. political figures from
accepting money from foreign sources. But as the Washington Post
noted in February 2015, the Bill, Hillary, & Chelsea Clinton
Foundation “has given donors a way to potentially gain favor with the
Clintons outside the traditional political [donation] limits.”9As of February 2015, foreign sources accounted for about one-third of
all donors who had given the Clinton Foundation more than $1 million,
and over half of those who had contributed more than $5 million.10
Foreign donors that gave money to the Foundation included: Hezbollah
supporter Issam Fares, who once served as deputy prime minister of
Lebanon;11 the Dubai Foundation, which also gave money to the families of Palestinian terrorists killed in action;12 the royal family of the United Arab Emirates; a Dubai-based company that promotes Sharia Law;13 a privately-held Chinese construction and trade conglomerate headed by a delegate of the Chinese parliament;14 and the governments of Saudi Arabia, Brunei, the United Arab Emirates, and Qatar.15Even during Clinton's tenure (2009-13) as secretary of state, the
Clinton Foundation received millions of dollars in donations
from seven foreign governments.Bill Clinton earned a total
of $48 million from foreign sources for his appearance and speaking fees
during his wife’s term as secretary.16In August 2016, the Associated Press reported that 85 of Hillary
Clinton's 154 scheduled meetings and phone calls with non-governmental
personnel during her time at the State Department were with donors who
gave $156 million to the Clinton Foundation. The AP report also revealed
that the Clinton Foundation had received $170 million in donations from
at least 16 foreign governments whose representatives met personally
with Mrs. Clinton.17In May 2015, the International Business Times
reported that the Clinton State Department had approved billions of
dollars in arms deals with governments that donated to the Clinton
Foundation, including governments that were infamous for their appalling
human-rights records.18But the Clinton Foundation certainly does many wonderful things for
needy people around the world, doesn't it? Well, according to a review
of IRS documents by The Federalist, between 2009-12 the Clinton
Foundation raised over $500 million in total. A mere 15% of that went
towards programmatic grants. The other $425 million went to travel
expenses, employee salaries and benefits, and “other expenses.”19 In 2013, the Clinton Foundation allocated only 6% of its revenues to direct charitable aid.20But hey, who cares? At least Mrs. Clinton never engaged in crude,
private trash talk that was recorded on tape. And all of her
disparaging, condescending, hate-soaked, fiction-laced denunciations of
her political rivals are delivered in measured, solemn, well-rehearsed
tones. And she deeply respects women, including the millions of women
around the world who have never benefited from the charitable services
that the Clinton Foundation purports to provide, because the Foundation
only spends a tiny percentage of its funds on actual charity.Clinton's Support for the Iran Nuclear DealVowing that Mrs. Clinton will “preven[t] Iran from acquiring a nuclear
weapon,” the Clinton presidential campaign website assures Americans
that “Hillary will vigorously enforce the nuclear agreement with Iran.”
Is this a good thing? Consider that the agreement's key provisions were
as follows:

Iran was permitted to keep more than 5,000 centrifuges.

Iran received $150 billion in sanctions relief.

Russia and China were permitted to supply Iran with weapons.

Iran was given the discretion to block international inspectors from
its military installations, and was promised that it would receive 14
days’ notice for any request to visit a given site.

Only
inspectors from countries that had diplomatic relations with Iran would
be given access to Iranian nuclear sites; thus there would be no
American inspectors.

An embargo on the sale of weapons to Iran would be officially lifted in 5 years.

The U.S. pledged that it would provide technical assistance to help
Iran develop its nuclear program and protect its nuclear facilities,
supposedly for peaceful domestic purposes.

Sanctions would be lifted on critical parts of Iran’s military.

Iran was not required to release American prisoners whom it was holding on trumped-up charges.21

As a result of this nuclear deal that Mrs. Clinton so enthusiastically
supports, Iran is guaranteed of having a near-zero breakout time to a
nuclear bomb approximately a decade down the road.But hey,
who cares? At least Mrs. Clinton never engaged in crude, private trash
talk that was recorded on tape. And all of her disparaging,
condescending, hate-soaked, fiction-laced denunciations of her political
rivals are delivered in measured, solemn, well-rehearsed tones. And she
deeply respects women, including the scores of millions of women in the
U.S., Israel, and elsewhere, whose very lives have been placed in
irreversible peril as a result of this deal.Clinton Helps Russia Gain Control of 20% of All U.S. UraniumIn 2007-08, a Canadian named Ian Telfer, chairman of a South African
uranium-mining company called Uranium One, funneled millions of dollars
in donations to the Clinton Foundation. In June 2010, the Russian
government made an extremely generous offer to Uranium One's
shareholders. If the offer were to be accepted, Russia would gain a 51%
controlling stake in the company.But because Uranium One
controlled one-fifth of all U.S. uranium reserves — and uranium, a key
component in both nuclear energy and nuclear weaponry, is considered a
strategic asset with implications for American national security — the
deal with Russia could not be permitted without the approval of the
American government. Specifically, that approval could be granted only
by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS),
which is composed of several of the most powerful members of the cabinet
— the Attorney General as well as the Secretaries of Defense, Commerce,
Treasury, Homeland Security, Energy, and State. (The latter, of course,
was Hillary Clinton.)22Without the approval of these seven Obama administration officials,
Russia's acquisition of Uranium One could not have taken place. All
seven, including Hillary Clinton, gave their go-ahead for the deal. As a
result, the Russian government took control of fully 20% of all uranium
production capacity in the United States.23In June 2010 — the very month in which the Russian acquisition of
Uranium One was approved by the CFIUS — Bill Clinton was invited to
speak in Moscow for the astronomical sum of $500,000. Russian Prime
Minister Vladimir Putin personally thanked Mr. Clinton for speaking. And
Mr. Clinton's speaking fee was paid by Renaissance Capital, a Russian
investment bank with ties to the Kremlin.24But hey, who cares? At least Hillary Clinton never engaged in crude,
private trash talk that was recorded on tape. And all of her
disparaging, condescending, hate-soaked, fiction-laced denunciations of
her political rivals are delivered in measured, solemn, well-rehearsed
tones. And she deeply respects women, including the countless millions
whose safety has been placed in jeopardy by permitting American uranium
to be gobbled up by a hostile, fascist Russia.The Benghazi Debacle, and Clinton's Role in Arming Jihadists in Libya and SyriaThroughout 2012, violent jihadist activity became increasingly
commonplace in the city of Benghazi and elsewhere throughout Libya and
North Africa. American personnel at the U.S. mission in Benghazi
repeatedly asked the Clinton State Department for increased security
provisions during 2012, but all of these requests were either denied or ignored.25On the night of September 11, 2012, a large group of heavily armed
Islamic terrorists attacked the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi with
great violence.26 In the process, they killed the U.S. Ambassador to Libya, Chris Stevens, and three other Americans.For weeks thereafter, Mrs. Clinton and the rest of the Obama
administration continued to characterize what had occurred on September
11 in Benghazi not as a carefully orchestrated act of terrorism, but as a
spontaneous uprising that evolved unexpectedly from what had begun as a
low-level protest against an obscure YouTube video.For the
administration, it was vital to continue putting forth this false
narrative because, with the presidential election only a few weeks away,
nothing could be permitted to puncture the Obama-Clinton talking
points: “Al Qaeda is on the run” and “Osama bin Laden is dead.”27In reality, however, within mere hours after the September 11 attack,
U.S. intelligence agencies had already gained more than enough evidence
to conclude unequivocally that it was a planned terrorist incident, and
that the YouTube video had nothing whatsoever to do with it.28On January 23, 2013 — fully 134 days after the September 11 attack in
Benghazi — Mrs. Clinton went before Congress to testify as to what she
knew about the incident. At one point in the hearing, Senator Rand Paul
asked her whether the United States had ever been involved in procuring
weapons in Libya and transferring them to other countries including
Syria. Clinton replied, “I do not know. I have no information on that.”29But a March 25, 2013 New York Times story
subsequently indicated that the Obama administration had in fact been
sending arms from Libya, through intermediary nations and ultimately to
Syria, since early 2012. And another Times article described Mrs.
Clinton as one of the driving forces who had called for arming the
Syrian rebels (who were fighting Syrian President Assad) in precisely
that manner.30 In other words, Clinton had lied in her congressional testimony to Rand Paul.It should be noted that the Syrian rebels whom Clinton and Obama were
aiding consisted of Islamic jihadists, many of whom were affiliated with
Al Qaeda. In July 2016, Julian Assange of Wikileaks revealed that a
batch of hacked DNC emails contained information proving that Clinton,
contrary to what she had said in her congressional testimony in 2013,
knew as early as 2011 that the U.S. was sending arms from Libya to
jihadists in Syria.31And in October 2016, a Fox News report indicated that Obama and
Clinton had also arranged for the provision of weapons to radical
jihadists in Libya.32In September 2014, former Deputy Secretary of State Raymond Maxwell
reported that in late 2012 he had witnessed — in the basement of the
State Department’s headquarters — a Sunday meeting in which Cheryl Mills
(Hillary Clinton’s chief of staff) and Jake Sullivan (Clinton's deputy
chief of staff) were overseeing and directing staffers who were busy
purging documents that might implicate Clinton or her top people in the
Benghazi attacks.33But hey, who cares? At least Mrs. Clinton never engaged in crude,
private trash talk that was recorded on tape. And all of her
disparaging, condescending, hate-soaked, fiction-laced denunciations of
her political rivals are delivered in measured, solemn, well-rehearsed
tones. And she deeply respects women, including: (a) the Libyan and
Syrian women whose lives were destroyed by the jihadists whom Hillary
Clinton and Barack Obama supported, and (b) the wives, mothers, sisters,
and daughters of the four Americans who were slaughtered by jihadists
in Benghazi.The Radical Islamist Affiliations of Clinton's Closest AideHillary Clinton's closest aide for many years has been Huma Abedin,
whose late father, Syed Abedin, was affiliated with the Muslim Students
Association (MSA). The MSA grew out of the jihadist Muslim Brotherhood,
which Islam expert Robert Spencer has described as “the parent
organization of Hamas and al Qaeda.”34Huma's mother, Saleha Mahmood Abedin, is a prominent member of the
Muslim Sisterhood — the Muslim Brotherhood's division for women. She is
also a board member of the International Islamic Council for Dawa and
Relief, a pro-Hamas entity that is part of the “Union of Good,” which
the U.S. government has formally designated as an international
terrorist organization. Saleha once wrote an article blaming America for
having provoked the Islamic “anger and hostility” that led to the 9/11
attacks.35From 1996-2008, Huma Abedin was employed by the Institute of Muslim
Minority Affairs (IMMA), a Saudi-based Islamic think tank founded by
Abdullah Omar Naseef, a major Muslim Brotherhood figure who once served
as secretary-general of the Muslim World League, a vehicle by which the
Muslim Brotherhood promotes the ideology of Islamic supremacism. Naseef also had ties to Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda, with whom he communicated.36 Abedin was the assistant editor of IMMA's in-house publication, the Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs (JMMA). At least the first seven of those years overlapped with Abdullah Omar Naseef's active presence in the IMMA.37It is vital to note that the IMMA's “Muslim Minority Affairs” agenda
was, and remains to this day, a calculated foreign policy of the Saudi
Ministry of Religious Affairs. It is designed, as former federal
prosecutor Andrew C. McCarthy explains, “to grow an unassimilated,
aggressive population of Islamic supremacists who will gradually but
dramatically alter the character of the West.”38But hey, who cares? At least Mrs. Clinton never engaged in crude,
private trash talk that was recorded on tape. And all of her
disparaging, condescending, hate-soaked, fiction-laced denunciations of
her political rivals are delivered in measured, solemn, well-rehearsed
tones. And she respects women, including the hundreds of millions of
women in Muslim nations who are oppressed by the very same Sharia Law
that is promoted by the organization to which Huma Abedin devoted 12
years of her life.The Deadly Consequences of Clinton's Absurd Fictions About Islam & TerrorismIn 2011 the Obama administration, in which Mrs. Clinton was obviously a
major player, decided to purge, from the training materials and
curricula of all federal intelligence and criminal investigators, every
single item suggesting that “jihad” or “Islam” were in any way related
to terrorism.39
Instead, the new objective would be “countering violent extremism,”
improving “cultural competency training across the United States
Government,” and promoting “cultural awareness.”40 All told, the FBI removed more than 1,000 presentations and curriculum items that were deemed “offensive” or “Islamophobic.”41The FBI's decision to change its training materials and interrogation
methods went on to have deadly serious, real-world consequences. A
particularly noteworthy case involved jihadist Omar Mateen, who in June
2016 entered a gay nightclub in Orlando, Florida and murdered 49 people
while wounding 53 others. The FBI had investigated Mateen extensively
for 10 months in 2013 because he had family connections to Al Qaeda, he
was a member of a Shi’a terrorist organization, and he had issued
terroristic threats on a number of occasions. But eventually, the FBI
canceled that investigation because, in accordance with the tenets of
its revised training materials, it concluded that Mateen posed no threat
to anyone; that his biggest problem was the psychic pain he was
suffering as a result of “being marginalized because of his Muslim
faith.” As a result of this absurd line of reasoning, 49 innocent people
from Orlando are now lying in their graves.42Hillary Clinton agrees completely with the notion that it is both
counterproductive and morally unjustified to suggest any connection
between Islam and terrorism — the same delusional, preposterous
mentality that enabled the Orlando mass murder to take place.But
hey, who cares? At least Mrs. Clinton never engaged in crude, private
trash talk that was recorded on tape. And all of her disparaging,
condescending, hate-soaked, fiction-laced denunciations of her political
rivals are delivered in measured, solemn, well-rehearsed tones. And she
deeply respects women and homosexuals, including the 49 people who were
slaughtered in the Orlando nightclub.Clinton's Role in the Rise of ISIS and the Stratospheric Growth of Worldwide TerrorismISIS, which evolved out of Al Qaeda in Iraq (AQI), grew into the most
powerful, well-funded horde of bloodthirsty barbarians in world history,
right under Mrs. Clinton's nose, and precisely during her watch as
secretary of state. While ISIS launched its campaign of mass rapes,
beheadings, slaughters, and tortures of unimaginable brutality — and
gained control over enormous portions of Iraq and Syria — Clinton and
President Obama did absolutely nothing to thwart it.43Moreover, the rise of ISIS coincided with the expansion of terrorism
to unprecedented levels all over the world. According to the Global
Terrorism Index, fatalities caused by terrorism increased from 3,361 in
2000, to 11,133 in 2012, to 18,111 in 2013, to 32,658 in 2014. More than
half of the 2014 killings were carried out by ISIS and Boko Haram, the
latter of which has pledged allegiance to ISIS.44 In other words, worldwide terrorism has spiraled out of control under Obama, Clinton, and Clinton's successor, John Kerry.But hey, who cares? At least Mrs. Clinton never engaged in crude,
private trash talk that was recorded on tape. And all of her
disparaging, condescending, hate-soaked, fiction-laced denunciations of
her political rivals are delivered in measured, solemn, well-rehearsed
tones. And she deeply respects women everywhere, including the many
thousands who are killed by terrorists across the globe each year.Clinton's Role in Squandering America's Victory in the Iraq WarISIS's meteoric ascent to power occurred as a direct result of President Obama's decision to rapidly withdraw all
U.S. troops from Iraq — against the advice of experienced military
leaders — in 2011. Retired Army General John M. Keane, the last American
commander in Iraq, had recommended that 23,000 U.S. troops be left in
place to secure the U.S. war victory. But Obama, wanting to be
remembered most of all as the president who ended wars rather than
fought them, left no forces behind. Beaming with pride, he frequently
took credit for bringing American military involvement in Iraq to a
formal close.45Of course, when ISIS later grew into a genocidal monster, Obama tried
to claim that his withdrawal from Iraq had been forced upon him by a
December 2008 deal in which President Bush and Iraqi president Maliki
signed a “status-of-forces” agreement stipulating that all U.S. troops
must leave Iraq by December 2011.46But status-of-forces agreements are often amended and renegotiated,
based on evolving security concerns. Obama left no U.S. forces in Iraq
for one very simple and obvious reason: he didn't want to. As Obama
himself stated during a 2012 debate with Republican challenger Mitt
Romney: “What I would not have done is left 10,000 troops [a far cry
from the 23,000 recommended by General Keane] in Iraq that would tie us
down. That certainly would not help us in the Middle East.”47It is vital to remember, moreover, that Iraqi president Maliki would
have been quite willing to accept a new status-of-forces agreement in
2011, had it stipulated that the U.S. would leave behind a contingent of
troops large enough to effectively secure the peace. But when Obama and
Clinton proposed to leave a mere 2,000 to 3,000 troops in Iraq, Maliki
had no choice but to refuse. As National Review explains:
“[T]he problem was that the Obama administration wanted a small force so
that it could say it had ended the war. Having a very small American
force wasn’t worth the domestic political price Maliki would have to pay
for supporting their presence.”48When Obama was deciding to pull all U.S. troops out of Iraq, Hillary
Clinton was in 100% agreement with him. As Fox News reports: “Clinton
was a leading and outspoken supporter of the Obama administration’s
decision to withdraw U.S. forces from Iraq.... Clinton touted the United
States’ commitment to Iraq in 2011 and said the Obama administration
has 'a plan in place' to ensure Iraq’s security.”49Instead, Iraq turned into a beehive of jihadism, terrorism, and mass murder.But hey, who cares? At least Mrs. Clinton never engaged in crude,
private trash talk that was recorded on tape. And all of her
disparaging, condescending, hate-soaked, fiction-laced denunciations of
her political rivals are delivered in measured, solemn, well-rehearsed
tones. And she deeply respects women everywhere, including the millions
whose lives were destroyed when a stable Iraq descended once again into
anarchy and terror.Clinton's Horrible Judgment Regarding Another Terrorist EnemyAs a member of the U.S. Senate, Mrs. Clinton opposed President Bush's
January 2007 decision to deploy an additional 21,500 troops in a
military “surge” designed to turn the tide of the Iraq War — which had
devolved into a bloody quagmire — back in America's favor:

In December 2006, when Bush was still contemplating the surge,
Clinton said: “Everyone knows there is no military solution to the
difficulties we face in Iraq.”50

In January 2007, Clinton complained that the surge was “taking troops
away from Afghanistan, where I think we need to be putting more troops,
and sending them to Iraq on a mission that I think has a very limited,
if any, chance for success.”51

In August 2007, Clinton said: “The surge was designed to give the
Iraqi government time to take steps to ensure a political solution to
the situation. It has failed to do so.... It is abundantly clear that
there is no military solution to the sectarian fighting in Iraq. We need
to stop refereeing the war, and start getting out now.”52

When General David Petraeus issued a September 2007 report on the
remarkably successful results that the surge was yielding, Clinton
obstinately told Petraeus that his assertions required “a willing
suspension of disbelief.”53

Contrary to Clinton's erroneous predictions and dispiriting rhetoric,
the troop surge proved to be a monumentally important strategy that
finally enabled the U.S. to crush the Iraqi insurgency. Prior to the
surge, it had not been uncommon for 3,000 or more Iraqi civilians and
security-force members to die at the hands of terrorist violence during
any given month. By May 2008, the monthly mortality figure stood at 19,
and it fluctuated between 7 and 25 deaths per month over the ensuing 14
months.54In his 2014 memoir, Robert Gates — who had served as Secretary of
Defense under both George W. Bush and Barack Obama — wrote that Hillary
Clinton's opposition to the troop surge had been based on how she
thought her own political fortunes would be affected by taking that
position. For example, Gates described a “remarkable” exchange that he
had witnessed, where Clinton, speaking retrospectively, “told the
president that her opposition to the [2007] surge in Iraq had been
political because she was facing him in the Iowa primary” and could not
afford to be perceived as pro-war.55But hey, who cares? At least Mrs. Clinton never engaged in crude,
private trash talk that was recorded on tape. And all of her
disparaging, condescending, hate-soaked, fiction-laced denunciations of
her political rivals are delivered in measured, solemn, well-rehearsed
tones. And she deeply respects women everywhere, including the millions
to whom she tried to deny the protection of American forces in the troop
surge.Clinton's Empty Talk Regarding Russia and ChinaHillary Clinton's presidential campaign website boasts that in 2010
Clinton “worked to ensure ratification of the New START treaty, which
will make the world safer by reducing U.S. and Russian nuclear arsenals
to their smallest size in 50 years.”56The New START agreement with Russia limited each country's long-range nuclear weapons stockpile to 1,500.57 But while both the U.S. and Russia agreed to these limits, only America promised to freeze its technology.58 As the late constitutional scholar Phyllis Schlafley wrote of the treaty:

But hey, who cares? At least Mrs. Clinton never engaged in crude,
private trash talk that was recorded on tape. And all of her
disparaging, condescending, hate-soaked, fiction-laced denunciations of
her political rivals are delivered in measured, solemn, well-rehearsed
tones. And she deeply respects women, including the 150+ million women
in the U.S. whose security was instantly and permanently compromised by
the terms of the New Start Treaty.Clinton's Reprehensible Treatment of IsraelIn 2010, Israeli Ambassador Michael Oren said that during the first
two years of the Obama-Clinton administration, “Israel’s ties with the
United States” had reached “their worst crisis since 1975 ... a crisis
of historic proportions.”60Some may recall how Mrs. Clinton betrayed Israel in the aftermath of
an infamous 2010 incident where terrorist members of a Turkish
organization known as the IHH — which has ties to Hamas, Al Qaeda, and
the Muslim Brotherhood — participated in a six-ship flotilla of
pro-Palestinian and anti-Israel activists who sailed to Gaza for the
purpose of breaking Israel's naval “blockade” there. (That “blockade”
was, in reality, a policy whereby Israel insisted on examining all
imports passing through Gaza, so as to prevent the ruling Hamas
government, which has sworn its permanent allegiance to the destruction
of Israel and the genocide of Jews, from importing weaponry from
abroad). The flotilla's lead ship was owned and operated by IHH. When
its crew refused to comply with repeated Israeli demands that it submit
to an inspection of its cargo, Israeli commandos boarded the vessel and
were violently attacked by IHH terrorists. In the melee that ensued,
nine IHH members were killed, and seven Israeli soldiers were wounded.
Thereafter, Clinton, by her own telling, “spent … literally years trying
to get the Israelis to finally apologize to the Turks on the flotilla.”61In the summer of 2014, Israel engaged in a massive military operation
designed to weaken the destructive capacity of Hamas terrorists who were
launching more than 100 potentially deadly missiles per day from Gaza,
deep into Israel. Before long, Israel discovered that Hamas, in recent
years, had constructed a massive network of at least 60 underground
missile storage-and-transport tunnels throughout Gaza. A number of those
tunnels extended, underground, into Israeli territory — for the purpose
of facilitating terror attacks, murders, and kidnappings against
unsuspecting Israeli citizens. According to a Wall Street Journal report,
Hamas had spent between $1 million and $10 million to build each of
those tunnels, using as many as 350 truckloads of cement and other
supplies per tunnel.62Then, in a bombshell revelation in August 2014, Dennis Ross, who had
served as Secretary of State Clinton's senior Mideast policy adviser,
revealed that Clinton had personally assigned him the task of pressuring
Israel to ease up on its military blockade of Gaza. “I argued with
Israeli leaders and security officials, telling them they needed to
allow more construction materials, including cement, into Gaza so that
housing, schools and basic infrastructure could be built,” said Ross.
“They countered that Hamas would misuse it, and they were right.” As one
analysis aptly puts it, “Ross’s admission shows that it was [Clinton]
who sent her personal envoy to push for a policy that ultimately enabled
Hamas to build the terror tunnels.”63But hey, who cares? At least Mrs. Clinton never engaged in crude,
private trash talk that was recorded on tape. And all of her
disparaging, condescending, hate-soaked, fiction-laced denunciations of
her political rivals are delivered in measured, solemn, well-rehearsed
tones. And she deeply respects women, including the millions of Israeli
Jews whose lives were placed in peril by Hamas's underground tunnels and
illegally imported weaponry.Clinton Turns Libya into a Terrorist Hell HoleDuring her tenure as secretary of state, Hillary Clinton pushed hard
for the U.S. to take military action designed to drive Muammar Gaddafi
from power in Libya.64
According to former Defense Secretary Robert Gates, who served under
President Obama, Clinton played a major role in convincing Obama to lead
a protracted NATO bombing campaign against Gaddafi in 2011 — a campaign
that lent support to opposition rebels consisting of ISIS, Ansar
al-Sharia, and other local militant groups. In other words, Clinton and
Obama — in their quest to unseat Gaddafi — were aiding murderous
jihadists in Libya.What is remarkable about this, is the
fact that Gaddafi at that time no longer posed any threat to American
national security. Indeed, just prior to the Al Qaeda-led uprising that
Clinton and Obama supported, Libya was providing the U.S. with important
intelligence data. Moreover, it was a prospering, secular Islamic
nation that had a national budget surplus of 8.7% and was producing 1.8
million barrels of oil per day.By the time the Obama-Clinton
bombing campaign was finished, Libya's economy had shrunk by 42% and
was operating at an annual deficit of 17.1%; oil production was down by
at least 80%.65According to Foreign Policy In Focus, the Obama-Clinton strategy “plunged” Libya “into chaotic unrest” and “turned [it] into a cauldron of anarchy.”66 Today Libya is a nation teeming with jihadists, and ISIS is becoming increasingly powerful there.67But hey, who cares? At least Mrs. Clinton never engaged in crude,
private trash talk that was recorded on tape. And all of her
disparaging, condescending, hate-soaked, fiction-laced denunciations of
her political rivals are delivered in measured, solemn, well-rehearsed
tones. And she deeply respects women, including the millions in Libya
who are now drowning in a tsunami of terrorism.Clinton's Plan to Import 65,000 Syrian Refugees into the U.S. As Quickly As Possible“We have to stem the flow of jihadists from Europe and America to and
from Iraq, Syria, and Afghanistan,” says the Clinton presidential
campaign website.68
While this sounds like a grand idea, it begs a very obvious question:
Why has Hillary Clinton explicitly called for bringing at least 65,000
refugees from Syria into the United States as quickly as possible,69 even though:

ISIS has vowed to deploy terrorist operatives to infiltrate the flow of Syrian refugees heading to Western nations?70

more than 1,500 terror-linked refugees, asylees and migrants entered the U.S. in 2014 alone?71

more than 30,000 illegal immigrants from “countries of terrorist
concern” entered the United States through America's Southwestern border
with Mexico in 2015?72

Michael Steinbach, deputy assistant director of the FBI’s
counter-terrorism unit, has made it clear that it is virtually
impossible to screen out terrorists who could be posing as refugees and
coming to America?73

FBI Director James Comey has said that the federal government does
not have the ability to conduct reliable background checks on the Syrian
refugees, and has warned that “there will be a terrorist diaspora [from
Syria and elsewhere in the Middle East] sometime in the next two to
five years like we’ve never seen before”?74

Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson has admitted that the U.S. will not “know a whole lot” about the refugees it accepts?75

CIA director John Brennan has said that ISIS “is probably exploring a
variety of means for infiltrating operatives into the West, including
in refugee flows ...”?76

As a direct result of the policy that Mrs. Clinton herself has spelled out, scores of thousands of people from the very seat of ISIS's power will soon be streaming into the United States at a record pace.But hey, who cares? At least Mrs. Clinton never engaged in crude,
private trash talk that was recorded on tape. And all of her
disparaging, condescending, hate-soaked, fiction-laced denunciations of
her political rivals are delivered in measured, solemn, well-rehearsed
tones. And she deeply respects women, including the countless American
women whose lives may be imperiled by an influx of Syrian terrorists
posing as refugees.Taking a long-range view of American
migration and refugee policy, Mrs. Clinton understands that eventually,
when these Syrian refugees and their relatives, and then their
descendants, become registered voters, they will vote heavily Democrat,
as the vast majority of immigrants from the Middle East have always
done.77And if some Americans have to get murdered along the way by terrorist
infiltrators, so be it. To Mrs. Clinton, that is simply one of the costs
of doing (political) business.Immigration: Clinton Explicitly Favors Amnesty, Sanctuary Cities, and “Open Borders” “Hillary will introduce comprehensive immigration reform with a
pathway to full and equal citizenship within her first 100 days in
office,” says the Clinton presidential campaign website.78
Mrs. Clinton pledges that if she is elected president, she will extend
President Obama's two major executive orders on immigration, which
protected millions of illegal aliens from deportation.79
She vows to do this despite the fact that Obama himself, prior to
issuing his executive orders, frequently acknowledged that such actions
went far beyond the proper limits of presidential authority.80
Speaking to a group of illegal immigrant high-school students in 2015,
Clinton said: “I want to do everything we can to defend the president's
executive orders ... As president I would do everything possible under
the law to go even further.”81Moreover, Mrs. Clinton unequivocally supports the “sanctuary” policies
that bar police and other public-sector employees in some 340 U.S.
cities from notifying the federal government about the presence of
illegal aliens residing in their communities. As such, these policies
defy the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act
that Congress passed twenty years ago to require that local governments
cooperate with U.S. Immigration & Customs Enforcement (ICE).82Sanctuary policies have turned hundreds of U.S. cities into very
dangerous places. Of the 9,295 deportable aliens who were released after
their arrest in sanctuary jurisdictions during the first eight months
of 2014 alone, some 2,320 were subsequently re-arrested, on new criminal
charges, soon thereafter. And before their initial release, 58% of
those 9,295 aliens already had felony charges or convictions on their
records, while another 37% had serious prior misdemeanor charges.83But Mrs. Clinton's commitment to sanctuary policies is unshakable. As
Xochitl Hinojosa, the Clinton presidential campaign's director of
coalitions press, said in 2015: “Hillary Clinton believes that sanctuary
cities can help further public safety, and she has defended those
policies going back years.”84In a speech she delivered at Banco Itau, a Brazilian bank, on May 16,
2013, Mrs. Clinton stated: “My dream is a hemispheric common market,
with open trade and open borders....”85You read that correctly: “open borders.”But hey, who cares? At least Mrs. Clinton never engaged in crude,
private trash that was recorded on tape. And all of her disparaging,
condescending, hate-soaked, fiction-laced denunciations of her political
rivals are delivered in measured, solemn, well-rehearsed tones. And she
deeply respects women, including the many whose lives and safety are
imperiled by open borders and sanctuary policies.Clinton's Opposition to Gun RightsLamenting that “too many families in America have suffered — and
continue to suffer — from gun violence,” Mrs. Clinton has stated that
crime victims should be allowed to sue firearm manufacturers and
retailers who lawfully produced or sold a gun that was used in a crime.86
This is a way to eliminate the Second Amendment “without firing a
shot,” so to speak, as it would inevitably cause the firearms industry
to disappear.87At a New Hampshire town hall in 2015, a man asked Mrs. Clinton whether
she would consider supporting a gun buyback measure similar to the one
that had been implemented in Australia: “Recently, Australia managed to
get away, or take away tens of thousands, millions of handguns. In one
year, they were all gone. Can we do that?” Clinton replied: “I think it
would be worth considering doing it on the national level, if that could
be arranged.”88In other words, Mrs. Clinton is eager to explore creative ways of eliminating the Second Amendment.But hey, who cares? At least she never engaged in crude, private trash
talk that was recorded on tape. And all of her disparaging,
condescending, hate-soaked, fiction-laced denunciations of her political
rivals are delivered in measured, solemn, well-rehearsed tones. And she
deeply respects women, including those who, in the absence of the
Second Amendment, will no longer be able to defend themselves and their
families against home invaders and other assailants. They will no longer
be among the hundreds of thousands of individuals who, each year, use
guns for defensive purposes to repel or frighten away would-be
attackers.89Clinton's Plans to Expand Obamacare into a Government-Run, Single-Payer SystemStating unequivocally that she plans to “defend and expand the Affordable Care Act” (ACA),90 Mrs. Clinton contends that Obamacare has thus far been a great success.Let's look, for a moment, at how successfully Obamacare has helped to
cut the cost of insurance premiums. When the law was being debated and
formulated, President Obama repeatedly assured Americans that under his
plan, the average family would save up to $2,500 per year in annual
premiums.91 The reality has been somewhat different:

A 2014 study by the Brookings Institution found that “premiums in the
individual health insurance market increased by 24.4 percent beyond
what they would have had they simply followed … [existing] trends.”92

The S&P Global Institute found that between 2013-15, the average market medical costs per individual increased by 69%.93

Premiums for ACA-compliant Qualified Health Plans that were sold to
individuals on the Obamacare exchanges, were $2,300 more expensive than
premiums for non-Qualified Health Plans, i.e., plans that were in
existence before 2014 and did not comply with the mandates of the ACA.94

In 2015, premiums for the lowest-cost plans across all tiers —
bronze, silver, gold and platinum — increased by a median of 10-13%.95

By September 2016, fully 16 of Obamacare's 23 state exchanges had
gone bankrupt, with another one — the Tennessee exchange — “very near
collapse.”96

It is expected that by the end of 2016, UnitedHealth Group will have
exited 31 of the 34 Obamacare exchanges in which it has participated,
while Aetna will have left 11 of its 15 state exchanges.97

Meanwhile, Obamacare's insurance policy deductibles are skyrocketing in almost every state. As National Review
reports: “Average deductibles for silver plans — which accounted for
nearly 70 percent of the exchanges’ 9.3 million enrollees [in 2015] —
now average $2,994. The second most popular Bronze plans have average
deductibles of $5,629.... Paying $3,000 or $5,600 before their insurance
kicks in simply isn’t an option for most families ...”98Hillary Clinton proposes to address the financial implosion of Obamacare by implementing a “public option”99
— i.e., a government-run insurance plan that would “compete” with
private insurers. Pacific Research Institute president Sally Pipes
explains how disastrous such a measure would be: “By drawing on taxpayer
dollars, this public option would be able to out-price almost every
private insurer in the country. Unable to compete, private insurers
would be 'crowded out,' leaving Americans with just one choice: a
government-operated health care plan that brings the entire health
sector under government control.”100But that, in a nutshell, is Mrs. Clinton's ultimate, long-range goal:
to have a “single-payer,” “universal” healthcare system that is run
entirely by the federal government. Her presidential campaign website
candidly states that she “has never given up on the fight for universal
coverage.”101And what does the empirical evidence show, regarding the effectiveness
of universal healthcare systems in countries around the world? It's
actually quite clear. As the Cato Institute puts it, “In countries
weighted heavily toward government control, people are most likely to
face waiting lists, rationing, restrictions on physician choice, and
other obstacles to care.” By contrast: “[T]hose countries with national
health care systems that work better, such as France, the Netherlands,
and Switzerland, are successful to the degree that they incorporate
market mechanisms such as competition, cost-consciousness, market
prices, and consumer choice, and eschew centralized government control.
In other words, socialized medicine works — as long as it isn’t
socialized medicine.”102So Hillary Clinton wants to implement a healthcare system that has
failed miserably in country after country, confident that she'll get
better results because she'll put smarter bureaucrats in charge of it.But hey, who cares? At least Mrs. Clinton never engaged in crude,
private trash talk that was recorded on tape. And all of her
disparaging, condescending, hate-soaked, fiction-laced denunciations of
her political rivals are delivered in measured, solemn, well-rehearsed
tones. And she respects women and girls deeply — even the 150+ million
females whose lives and health will be placed in peril by the expansion
of Obamacare and the pursuit of a single-payer system.Rejecting School Vouchers for Poor Minority Children in Failing Urban SchoolsProfessing to have spent her entire adult life “fighting for children,”103 Hillary Clinton dogmatically opposes the implementation of school voucher programs104
which would enable the parents of low-income, mostly-minority children
who attend failing, inner-city public schools, to send their youngsters
instead to private schools where they might actually have a chance of
succeeding academically.Why would anyone reject such programs, if he or she actually cared about poor minority kids?As always, if you want to find out what motivates Mrs. Clinton, you
have to follow the money. Together, the two largest teachers' unions in
the United States — the National Education Association (NEA) and the
American Federation of Teachers (AFT) — have given tens of millions of
dollars in campaign contributions to political candidates since the
early 1990s, and more than 95% of that money has gone to Democrats. If
we also count the massive expenditures that teachers' unions make on
politically oriented initiatives like television ads and
get-out-the-vote efforts, the numbers become almost unfathomable. From
2007-12, the NEA and AFT together spent more than $330 million to
influence elections in favor of Democrats.105The leading objective of both the NEA and AFT is to maximize
employment opportunities for dues-paying members of their unions. This
is highly significant because mandatory dues constitute the very
lifeblood of those unions. And voucher programs, which would siphon
students as well as money away from the public schools, don't promote
union membership or union dues.So Hillary Clinton rejects voucher programs because her union benefactors oppose them.But hey, who cares? At least she never engaged in crude, private trash
talk that was recorded on tape. And all of her disparaging,
condescending, hate-soaked, fiction-laced denunciations of her political
rivals are delivered in measured, solemn, well-rehearsed tones. And she
deeply respects women — even impoverished, inner-city minority women
who have no choice but to send their children to public schools that are
beset by academic failure and violence of monumental proportions.“Criminal Justice Reform”: Going Soft on Crime, and Filling America's GraveyardsHillary Clinton tells us that Americans everywhere “are crying out for
criminal justice reform” because “families are being torn apart by
excessive incarceration,” and “children are growing up in homes
shattered by prison and poverty.”106How does Mrs. Clinton know that our country's current levels of
incarceration are excessive? What, exactly, would be the right number of
people in prison? How would we arrive at that number?Consider some highly noteworthy facts:

In 1990, when there were about 1,149,000 prisoners in penitentiaries
nationwide, there were 1,820,130 violent crimes committed that year,
including 23,440 murders.107

In 2014, when there were 2,208,000 inmates in penitentiaries
nationwide, a total of 1,197,987 violent crimes were committed that
year, including 14,249 murders.108

So, even as the population of the United States grew by 28% between
1990 and 2014, the incidence of violent crimes declined by 46%, and the
incidence of murders fell by 39%.

These numbers suggest
that putting more criminals in prison has helped to spare at least a
million people per year from being victimized by violent crimes, and to
save at least 9,000 people per year from being murdered. If we look at
the numbers from this perspective, incarceration suddenly doesn't look
like such a bad thing, does it?And indeed, Mrs. Clinton
herself inadvertently admitted this when she recently said, while
railing against “mass incarceration,” that “the numbers [of prisoners]
today are much higher than they were 30, 40 years ago, despite the fact
that crime is at historic lows.”109Poor Hillary Clinton. She opened her mouth in an unscripted moment and accidentally told the truth.But hey, who cares if she supports policies that result in more death
and destruction? At least Mrs. Clinton never engaged in crude, private
trash talk that was recorded on tape. And all of her disparaging,
condescending, hate-soaked, fiction-laced denunciations of her political
rivals are delivered in measured, solemn, well-rehearsed tones. Plus,
she deeply respects women, including the ones who, under her
criminal-justice “reform” policies, would face a far greater likelihood
of being abused, violated, or slain by criminals who really belonged in
prison.Fighting Voter ID Laws As “Racist” Schemes to Disenfranchise MinoritiesAt an August 2013 meeting of the American Bar Association, Mrs.
Clinton lamented that “more than 80 bills restricting voting rights” had
been “introduced in 31 states” during the first eight months of that
year. These were generally bills that sought to institute Voter ID
requirements at polling places, shorten early-voting periods, eliminate
same-day voter registration, prevent the arbitrary extension of voting
hours, and carefully regulate the use of absentee voting. All of these
proposed measures were designed to reduce the likelihood of voter fraud,
but Mrs. Clinton called them “voter suppression” efforts that were part
of a racist scheme to “disproportionately [disenfranchise]
African-Americans, Latino[s] and young voters.”110
On another occasion, Clinton said that Voter ID laws are emblematic of a
racist form of “fear-mongering about a phantom epidemic of election
fraud.”111Is Mrs. Clinton correct? Look at the evidence and decide for yourself:

A 2012 report by the Pew Center on the States found that 24 million
voter registrations — one-eighth of all registrations nationwide — were
either invalid or inaccurate, including more than 1.8 million dead
people who were still registered.112

A 2014 study found that two years earlier, some 155,692 registered voters in North Carolina alone had
first and last names, birth dates, and final-four Social Security
Number digits that matched those of voters who were registered in other
states.113

The same study also found that 35,570 people who had actually voted in
North Carolina, had first names, last names, and birth dates that
matched those of voters who had cast ballots in other states.114

In 2008, Democrat Al Franken won a highly controversial U.S.
Senate race in Minnesota by just 312 votes. It was later discovered that
1,099 felons — all legally ineligible to vote — had cast ballots in the
election, almost exclusively for Franken.115

A 2006 study found that 77,000 dead people were listed on New York's
statewide database of registered voters, and that as many as 2,600 of
them had somehow managed to cast ballots from the grave.116

In Milwaukee in 2004, approximately 5,300 more ballots were cast, than voters who were recorded as having shown up at the polls.117

In 2008, election officials nationwide had to discard at least 400,000 bogus voter registrations submitted by ACORN,118
the now-defunct criminal operation masquerading as a “community
organization.” (Speaking at ACORN’s 2006 national convention, Mrs.
Clinton said: “I thank you for being part of that great movement, that
progressive tradition that has rolled across our country.”)119

In 2011, a Colorado study found that of the nearly 12,000
non-citizens who were illegally registered to vote in that state, about
5,000 had taken part in the 2010 general election.120

In ten Colorado counties in 2012, voter registrations outnumberedthe totalvoting-age population by between 4% and 40%.121

The foregoing examples represent only the barest tip of a colossal election-fraud iceberg. And Hillary Clinton knows all about it. She really isn't dumb enough to believe what she says about election fraud and voter ID. She's just counting on voters being dumb enough to believe her.But hey, who cares? At least Mrs. Clinton never engaged in crude,
private trash talk that was recorded on tape. And all of her
disparaging, condescending, hate-soaked, fiction-laced denunciations of
her political rivals are delivered in measured, solemn, well-rehearsed
tones. Plus, she deeply respects women — even the ones whose votes are
nullified by the ballots of people who are legally ineligible to
participate in elections.Clinton's Affiliation with Al Sharpton & Black Lives MatterIn April 2007, Mrs. Clinton spoke at
an event held by Al Sharpton's National Action Network, where she
stated that her own presidential bid was possible only because of the
dedicated work of longtime civil-rights leaders who, like Sharpton, had
fought on behalf of those traditionally excluded from power positions in
American life. “I have enjoyed a long and positive relationship with
Reverend Al Sharpton and National Action Network,” said Clinton, “and I
don't ever remember saying 'no' to them, and I intend to remain their
partner in civil rights as I clean the dirt from under the carpet in the
Oval Office when I am elected President.”122And nothing whatsoever has changed in Mrs. Clinton's estimation of
Sharpton, perhaps the most repugnant racial arsonist in contemporary
America, in the years since then. In April 2016, for instance,
Clinton again spoke at a National Action Network event where she lauded
Sharpton and his organization for steadfastly working “on the frontlines
of our nation’s continuing struggle for civil rights,” and “in a
million ways lift[ing] up voices that too often go unheard.”123Speaking of repugnant racial arsonists, in August 2015 Mrs. Clinton
held an impromptu, videotaped conversation with three Black Lives
Matter (BLM) activists who were complaining about the “mass
incarceration” of African Americans. In response to them, Clinton said:
“This country has still not recovered from its original sin [slavery]
... Your analysis is totally fair. It's historically fair, it's
psychologically fair, it's economically fair.... All I'm suggesting is,
even for us sinners [white people], find some common ground on agendas
that can make a difference right here and now in people's lives.”124A bit of background information about BLM is in order here. Founded by
Marxist revolutionaries in 2013, BLM depicts the United States as a
nation thoroughly awash in racism, sexism, and homophobia. Demonstrators
at BLM events commonly smear white police as trigger-happy bigots who
are intent upon killing innocent, unarmed black males. The protesters
also taunt, and direct obscenities at, uniformed police officers who are
on duty. Their principal hero is the Marxist icon, former Black
Panther, convicted accomplice in a cop-killing, and longtime fugitive
Assata Shakur. At all BLM events, demonstrators invoke a quote by Shakur
that includes an excerpt from the Communist Manifesto of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels.125But hey, who cares? At least Mrs. Clinton never engaged in crude,
private trash talk that was recorded on tape. And all of her
disparaging, condescending, hate-soaked, fiction-laced denunciations of
her political rivals are delivered in measured, solemn, well-rehearsed
tones. Plus, of course, it goes without saying that she respects women
deeply. Oh, so deeply.Clinton’s View of the Supreme Court and Its PurposeWhen Mrs. Clinton was asked, in an October 2016 presidential debate,
to articulate what would be her chief considerations when appointing
Supreme Court Justices, she never once mentioned fidelity to the
Constitution, which is in fact the principal duty of the Court. Instead,
Clinton alluded to the idea that Justices should try to balance the
proverbial scales of power in favor of people who lack wealth and
influence: “I want to appoint Supreme Court Justices who understand the
way the world really works … [and] actually understand what people are
up against.” In other words, Clinton prefers Justices who seek to
enforce her particular vision of “social justice,” rather than an ideal
of blind, unbiased justice.Mrs. Clinton then proceeded to
explain that she would nominate only Justices who share her
public-policy preferences vis-à-vis certain hot-button, litmus-test
issues:(1) “I would want to see the Supreme Court reverse Citizens United and get dark unaccountable money out of our politics.” (Citizens United
was a 2010 Supreme Court ruling that left intact the federal law
prohibiting corporations and unions from making campaign contributions
to politicians, but nullified a provision barring such entities from
paying for political ads made independently of candidate campaigns—on
grounds that the First Amendment prohibits Congress from censoring any
entity's right to engage in, or to fund, political speech.)(2) “I would like the Supreme Court to understand that voting rights are
a big problem in many parts of the country. That we don't do always do
everything we can to make it possible for people of color and older
people and young people to be able to exercise their franchise.” (In
other words, Mrs. Clinton would appoint Justices who oppose Voter ID
laws, favor extended early-voting periods, support voting rights for
convicted felons, and endorse universal voter registration — all
measures that would make it significantly easier to commit voter fraud.)(3) “I want a Supreme Court that will stick with Roe v. Wade and a woman’s right to choose.”(4) “I want a Supreme Court that will stick with marriage equality” (i.e., same-sex marriage).Clinton Supports Partial-Birth AbortionOn March 12, 2003, Hillary Clinton went to the Senate floor to speak
out against legislation that proposed to ban the procedure commonly
known as “partial-birth abortion” — where the abortionist maneuvers the
baby into a breech (feet-first) delivery position, permits its entire
body to exit the birth canal except for its head, and then uses scissors
to puncture the baby's brain and kill it while the head is still inside
the mother. Defending the legality of this procedure and condemning
Republicans for trying to outlaw it, Clinton argued that any attempt “to
criminalize a medical procedure” would compromise American liberty.126But hey, who cares? At least Mrs. Clinton never engaged in crude,
private trash talk that was recorded on tape. And all of her
disparaging, condescending, hate-soaked, fiction-laced denunciations of
her political rivals are delivered in measured, solemn, well-rehearsed
tones. Plus, she respects not only women, but girls as well — even the
female babies who are subjected to atrocities like the one described
above.For Hillary Clinton, abortion is a civil liberty that
should be funded not by the biological mother herself, but by all
taxpayers. Indeed, Planned Parenthood — to Clinton's delight — receives
more than $520 billion per year in government funding, and much of that
is used to pay for abortions.127
Moreover, Mrs. Clinton has vowed to repeal what is known as the Hyde
Amendment, a 1976 law that has traditionally prohibited federal funding
for abortions.128 Apparently, for Mrs. Clinton “it takes a village”129 to produce enough cultural and moral rot to fully destroy a civilization.Clinton's Personal Persecution of a Young Rape VictimWhile the Clinton presidential campaign website touts “Hillary’s plan
to end campus sexual assault,” it laments that “many who choose to
report sexual assault in the criminal justice system fear that their
voices will be dismissed instead of heard.”130
But Mrs. Clinton herself took part in one of the most repulsive
exhibitions of cruelty to a rape victim ever seen in an American
courtroom.The year was 1975, and attorney Hillary Clinton
was defending Thomas Alfred Taylor, a 41-year-old man accused of raping
and beating a 12-year-old girl named Kathy Shelton. So brutal was
Taylor's assault, that the victim spent five days in a coma immediately
afterward; then several months recovering from the physical thrashing
that accompanied the rape; plus, more than 10 years in psychotherapy.131Mrs. Clinton knew for certain that Taylor was guilty of this crime, as
she made clear years later when she discussed the case in a 1980s
interview with Arkansas journalist Roy Reed. “He [Taylor] took a lie
detector test!” Mrs. Clinton recalled. “I had him take a polygraph test,
which he passed, which forever destroyed my faith in polygraphs.”132Notwithstanding her certitude regarding the man's guilt, Clinton
negotiated a plea bargain for Taylor by taking advantage of a
prosecutorial error — the prosecutors had cut out and examined the
blood-covered section of Taylor's underwear that proved his guilt, but
then discarded the fabric, making it impossible for the defense to
examine it. Because of this misstep, Clinton, confident that the
prosecution would be unable to prove Taylor's guilt, pushed for a plea
bargain.133In the aforementioned 1980s interview, Mrs. Clinton laughed as she
recounted how the polygraph results were clearly erroneous, and how a
forensic scientist from New York was prepared to testify that Taylor
could not be convicted if the underwear fabric was no longer available.
When Reed asked Clinton about the outcome of the case, she replied,
nonchalantly, “Oh he plea bargained. Got him off with time served in the
county jail, he’d been in the county jail about two months.”134Subsequent to the Taylor trial, a Newsday
examination of court files and investigative files revealed that Mrs.
Clinton had also attacked the young victim's character during the trial
by calling into question her motives, her honesty, her temperament, and
her ability to perceive reality — even though she knew with 100%
certainty that her client was guilty.135In a highly emotional June 2014 interview, Kathy Shelton accused Mrs.
Clinton of intentionally lying about her in court documents and going to
extraordinary lengths to discredit evidence of the rape. “Hillary
Clinton took me through Hell,” Shelton said. “She lied like a dog on me.
I think she was trying to do whatever she could do to make herself look
good at the time.... She wanted it to look good, she didn’t care if
those guys [Taylor and an accomplice] did it or not. Them two guys
should have got a lot longer time [in prison]. I do not think justice
was served at all.”136But hey, who cares? At least Mrs. Clinton never engaged in crude,
private trash talk that was recorded on tape. And all of her
disparaging, condescending, hate-soaked, fiction-laced denunciations of
her political rivals are delivered in measured, solemn, well-rehearsed
tones. Plus, she deeply respects females, even young girls whose known
rapists she defends in court, and whose trials she later recalls with
self-satisfied bellows of laughter.ConclusionThis, then, is Hillary Clinton: a woman who is wholly, unequivocally
unfit to serve as anything more than an inmate in a federal
penitentiary. She has demonstrated, time and again:

that she cannot, under any circumstances, be trusted with national security or state secrets;

that she treats the paper on which the Espionage Act is written, with
no more reverence than she would give to a strip of toilet paper;

that she treats with similar disregard the paper on which the U.S. Constitution is written;

that her judgment in matters of international conflict, diplomacy, and terrorism is an abomination;

that she routinely uses her “charitable foundation” as a
money-laundering operation designed to enrich herself under the guise of
helping the needy;

that she will gladly sell out her country, and everyone in it, in exchange for material riches and political dominion;

the she is intent upon using the most irresponsible refugee and
immigration policies imaginable to import countless millions of people
from hostile, impoverished nations across the globe for one core
purpose: to permanently transform the American population into one that
will vote reliably Democrat from now until the end of time;

that she fully intends to purge the Second Amendment from the Bill of Rights;

that she unequivocally plans to expand the disastrous, failing
Obamacare debacle into an even more monstrous, government-run,
single-payer healthcare system;

that she favors soft-on-crime policies that have repeatedly been shown to cause violent crime rates to skyrocket;

that she is perfectly willing to institutionalize massive, ubiquitous
voter fraud because she believes that it will ensure additional power
for her political party;

that she views white Americans as a whole, as inherently, “implicitly,”137 and “irredeemably”138 racist, and therefore in constant need of an all-powerful government to restrain their bigoted impulses;

that despite her professed aversion to racism in general, she is
quite happy to ally herself with “politically correct” racists like Al
Sharpton and the Black Lives Matter movement; and

that she
opposes the imposition of any restrictions whatsoever on abortion
rights, or on the government's power to force taxpayers to fund
abortions.

In the final analysis, Hillary Clinton is a
woman with a mindset that is totalitarian in every respect. To make
matters worse, she is a lying, deceiving, manipulative, self-absorbed
criminal without a shred of personal virtue. Truly it can be said that
never before in American history has anyone so unfit and so undeserving,
run for president. Never.For a list of references go to: Frontpage mag.com

Knowledge is power.The Realistic Observer is a non-partisan, non-profit blog dedicated to keeping our readers as informed as possible.